Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T00:42:02.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Study on the opinion of university students about the themes of the origin of Universe and evolution of life

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2010

Rogério F. de Souza ,
Marcelo de Carvalho ,
Tiemi Matsuo  and
Dimas A.M. Zaia
Rogério F. de Souza
Affiliation:
Departamento de Biologia Geral-CCB, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, 86051-990, Londrina, Paraná, Brazil
Marcelo de Carvalho
Affiliation:
Departamento de Biologia Geral-CCB, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, 86051-990, Londrina, Paraná, Brazil
Tiemi Matsuo
Affiliation:
Departamento de Estatística-CCE, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, 86051-990, Londrina, Paraná, Brazil
Dimas A.M. Zaia
Affiliation:
Laboratório de Química Prebiótica, Departamento de Química-CCE, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, 86051-990, Londrina, Paraná, Brazil e-mail: damzaia@uel.br
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper reports the results of a questionnaire administered to university students, about several questions involving the origin of the Universe and life and biological evolution, as well as questions related to more common scientific themes. As few as between 2.4% (philosophy students) and 14% (geography students) did not accept the theory of evolution, because they believed in creation as described in the Bible. However, between 41.5% (philosophy students) and 71.3% (biology students) did not see any conflict between religion and evolution. About 80% of the students believed that the relationship between lung cancer and smoking is well established by science, but this number falls to 65% for biological evolution and 28.9% for the big bang theory. It should be pointed out that for 24.5% and 7.4% of the students the big bang theory and biological evolution, respectively, are poorly established by science. The students who self-reported being Christian but not Roman Catholic are more conservative in the acceptance of biological evolution and the old age of Earth and the Universe than are other groups of students. Other factors, such as family income and the level of education of parents, appear to influence the students' acceptance of themes related to the origin of the Universe and biological evolution.

Keywords

creation sciencecreationismevolutionintelligent designorigin of life
Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Astrobiology , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 109 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Apple, M.W. (2003). Educ. Pol. 17, 519–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apple, M.W. (2008). Educ. Pol. 22, 327–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, W.H., Powell, M.J. & Dukes, G.H. (2003). J. Biol. Educ. 37, 58–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, P. & Weisberg, D.S. (2007). Science 316, 996–997.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brum, E.E. (2005). Revista Época, 346, 3 January 2005. Retrieved on 7 July 2008 from http://revistaepoca.globo.com/Epoca/0,6993,EPT884203-1664-1,00.html.Google Scholar
Coalition of Scientific Societies. (2008). FASEB J. 22, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dagher, Z.R. & Boujaoude, S. (1997). J. Res. Sci. Teach. 34, 429–445.3.0.CO;2-S>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dagher, Z.R. & Boujaoude, S. (2005). Sci. Educ. 89, 378–391.Google Scholar
Downie, J.R. (2004). Biosci. Educ. Electron. J. 4, 3, (http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol4/beej-4-3.pdf)Google Scholar
Forrest, B. (2008). Integr. Comp. Biol. 48, 189–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, L. & Redfors, A. (2006). Res. Sci. Educ. 36, 355–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística) (2008). Retrieved on 18 August 2008 from http://www.ibge.com.br/home/presidencia/noticias/noticia_visualiza.php?id_noticia=892&id_pagina=1.Google Scholar
Ingram, E.L. & Nelson, C.E. (2006). J. Res. Sci. Teach. 43, 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombrozo, T., Thanukos, A. & Weisberg, M. (2008). Evol. Educ. Outreach 1, 290–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovely, E.C. & Kondrick, L.C. (2008). Integr. Comp. Biol. 48, 164–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J.D., Scott, E.C. & Okamoto, S. (2006). Science 313, 765–766.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, R. & Miksch, K.L. (2003). Sci. Educ. Rev. 2, 15.1–15.12.Google Scholar
Pennock, R.T. (2003). Annu. Rev. Genom. Hum. Genet. 4, 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, E.C. (1997). Annu. Rev. Anthr. 26, 263–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, E.C. & Matzke, N.J. (2007). Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 104(suppl. 1), 8669–8676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinatra, G.M., Southerland, S.A., McConaughy, F. & Demastes, J.W. (2003). J. Res. Sci. Teach. 40, 510–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tidon, R. & Lewontin, R.C. (2004). Genet. Mol. Biol. 27, 124–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar